 |
| Australopithicus afarensis (artist's impression) |
In 1974[sic], famous fossil hunter Dr Mary Leakey and her team were reported to have uncovered the oldest set of manlike (hominid) footprints ever found, supposedly 3.5 million years old, at Laetoli in East Africa. Most experts agree that these fossils are among the oldest evidence (on their own time-scale) that we have of man and his immediate ancestors. The majority of man-like fossils are all regarded as being younger than these.So, there we have it. Obviously, the fact that the human foot and bipedalism had evolved in a possible human ancestor 3.5 million years ago proves that the earth is only 6000 years old and evolution never happened.
In 1987 Mary Leakey published a book on the Laetoli finds.1 At the back of this book, R. H. Tuttle reported a study he had made on the footprints.2 Under a heading ‘Evolutionary Implications’ Tuttle says,
‘Strictly on the basis of the morphology of the G prints [prints found at a site labelled ‘G’], their makers could be classified as Homo sp. because they are so similar to those of Homo sapiens, but their early date would probably deter many paleoanthropologists from accepting this assignment. I suspect that if the prints were undated, or if they had been given younger dates, most experts would probably accept them as having been made by Homo . . . .Tuttle then goes on to speculate about when man's ape-like ancestors began to walk upright.
‘If the prints were produced by a small species of Australopithecus (southern ape) then we must conclude that it had virtually human feet which . . . were used in a manner indistinguishable from those of slowly walking humans. . . . The feet that produced the G trails are in no discernible features transitional between the feet of apes . . . and those of Homo sapiens. They are like small barefoot Homo sapiens.’
We could not wish for clearer evidence from an evolutionist that it is only his (and his colleagues’) evolutionary assumptions that force him to reach evolutionary conclusions.
There are many similarities between apes and man, but one of the most distinctive differences is the feet. Ape feet are like our hands, with an opposable big toe (like our thumb). Human feet are different from any in the animal world—no other has feet like ours.
So the Laetoli footprints are clearly telling us that man was walking around as he does today when he first appeared in the fossil record. There is no sign of evolution here!
The late Alexander R. Williams was a botanist.
How can science compete with devastating logic of this calibre?
References:
1. M.D. Leakey and J.M. Harris, eds., LAETOLI—A Pliocene site in Northern Tanzania, Clarendon Press, London, 1987.
2. R. H. Tuttle, ‘Kinesiological inferences and evolutionary implications from Laetoli bipedal trails G-1, G-2/3 and A’, Leakey and Harris, Ref. 1, Chapter 13.3, pp. 503—523.
Actually some bear footprints are often mistaken for human footprints so he's not correct there either. However, I'm just as baffled as to how a 3.5 million year old footprint proves that evolution is just a matter of the last 6,000 years.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I'm bewildered. First of all, humans are apes. We have the same defining traits for apes. Second, no biologist in their right mind would pretend you would class an animal on the basis of a single trait (in this case foot impressions) rather than a matrix of traits. A lying piece-of-shit with no conscience of course, wouldn't find that charade a problem.
ReplyDeleteFinally, any consideration of the Australopithecene fossils would realise that the shallow hips, flange on the top of the femur, valgus knee etc demonstrates that bipedalism was one of the earliest adaptations of our hominid ancetsors to appear.